1. It's true that the historical record sometimes gets messed up.
Agreed. And I don't think people should be imprisoned like they are in Europe for simply questioning the historical record.
2. The Protocols are a derivative work of Joly's Dialogues in Hell. There is no question that they are inauthentic.
By that standard so is Romeo and Juliet being a variation of Il Novelino by Salernitano.
3. Misattributing authorship is a lie unless it is unintentional;
Don't worry. I fessed up in the posting that I made. The last sentence was, "oh, my mistake, that was St. John Chrysostom, not Williamson." But my opponent was so blinded by hatred, he didn't see that. I had to refer him back when he accused me of the same trickery.
St. Chrysostom's Homilies Against the Judaizers are rhetorical and frequently exaggerate for effect in a manner that would have been known to his listeners
Where did St. John C. state this? Can you cite that?
- this is not true of Williamson's pastorals.
How do you know this? I would say Williamson is a genius in that he throws out a statement much like Chesterton did that sounds on its surface absurd, but when you hear his argument it turns out to be perceptive statements. (eg. Women and trousers as a sign of the "blending of genders" in modern society. The syrupy and sappy romance of the Sound of Music which fills youngs peoples minds with error ridden concepts of marriage. )
2. Romeo and Juliet is not historical, nor was it presented as such. The Protocols were originally presented as relating actual facts. If they don't relate an actual meeting of the "Learned Elders of Zion" they would be completely irrelevant.
3. Ah. That is pretty ridiculous. On the other hand, this Prot managed to get a Catholic "apologist" to call St. Augustine "Our Protestant brother" and rank him among those who "separate the divinity of Christ from His person", so I'm not sure just how much this sort of thing really proves.
4. How about this from Homily VI?
What about this? After the waters of the sea were divided, after the rocks were broken asunder, after so many miracles were worked in the desert, did you not worship the calf?. Did you not try many times to kill Moses, now by stoning him, now by driving him into exile, and in ten thousand other ways? Did you ever stop hurling blasphemies at God? Were you not initiated in the rites of Baal of Peor? Did you not sacrifice your sons and daughters to demons? Did you not make a display of every form of ungodliness and sin? ... You did slay Christ, you did lift violent hands against the Master, you did spill his precious blood. This is why you have no chance for atonement, excuse, or defense.
Obviously he doesn't mean that the Jews of his day actually did those things; such a statement would be absurd.
See how he says "you have no chance for atonement"? Compare this to his actual exegesis of Scripture, in Homily 86 in St. Matthew:
"I am innocent," they cried out "His blood be on us, and on our children." Then at length when they had given sentence against themselves, he yielded that all should be done. ... Nevertheless, the lover of man, though they acted with so much madness, both against themselves, and against their children, so far from confirming their sentence upon their children, confirmed it not even on them, but from the one and from the other received those that repented, and counts them worthy of good things beyond number.
5. I just can't see the value in citing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...